Survival of the Sickest, Why We Need Disease

_{Salvador Cordova

April 27, 2009

Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

“It’s not a bug, it’s a feature!”

This is a phrase a software engineer will use to jokingly confess his software has a defect.

When Sharon Moalem wrote the NY Times Bestseller, Survival of the Sickest: Why We Need Disease, he probably did not intend to make a joking confession of flaws in Darwin’s theory, but he succeed in doing so.

Recall the words of Darwin:

Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good.

C.DARWIN sixth edition Origin of Species — Ch#4 Natural Selection

If Darwin’s claim is true, why then are we confronted with numerous, persistent, hereditary diseases?

Can it be that Darwin was wrong? The obvious answer is yes. But in the face of an obvious flaw in Darwin’s ideas, Moalem argues that what appears to be a flaw in Darwin’s theory is actually an ingenious feature! Moalem extols the virtues of disease, and since disease is virtuous, natural selection will favor it.

It is accepted that sickle-cell anemia persists because of natural selection, but what about other diseases? Moalem explores many other diseases like diabetes, hemochromatosis, high cholesterol, early aging, favism, obesity, PANDAS, CCR5-delta32, xenophobia, etc. showing how natural selection incorporated these “virtuous” diseases into our species.

Moalem is not alone in arguing that natural selection creates through the process of destruction. For example, Allen Orr suggests that natural selection is the cause of blindness in Gammarus minus. In the world of Darwin, what happened to Gammarus minus isn’t the loss of vision, it is the creation of blindness. And since selection favors blindness in Gammarus minus, blindness is a functional improvement! Once again, Darwinism is immune to any testability through the process of constantly redefining what is considered “good”.

The net result is that Moalem’s book becomes an unwitting critique of Darwinian evolution. It highlights numerous empirical examples of how natural selection actually goes against Darwinian ideas of constant progress, and instead demonstrates how natural selection can be an agent of demise.

Comments

I have expressed some reservations, or at least qualifications, about MN at 266, 314, and 329.hazel_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Everyone, StephenB said the following about Paul Kurtz "“Naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible" Who here supports this dictum about science; rejects it? Speak or forever hold your peace.jerry_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

Here is a question for both pro ID and anti ID alike. Name one study that an anti ID person would do that a pro ID wouldn't? If you cannot name any, then why should there be any prohibition of pro ID people in science?jerry_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

StephenB, "Both sides understand the meaning." Our know nothings here seem to claim other wise. You have show that some people are explicit in the limitations on conclusions from a study. No one is obliged to follow these dictums and we have a host of people here including hazel, Allen MacNeill, Nakashima, Alan Fox and Seversky who will join us in fighting this edict. I assume they will fight with us to oppose it. Otherwise we should ask them why and see how they wiggle out of support.jerry_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

Here is Paul Kurtz definition of methodological naturalism: (Plantinga is ID; Kurtz is anti-ID “Naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible.... Both sides understand the meaning.StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

@331 should be, "[It] means disallowing...."StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

----Jerry: "Practicing methodological naturalism means examining the natural world. It does not imply what conclusions one makes based on that examination." Actually, it means a great deal more than that. I means disallowing any evidence from the natural world that might hint of supernatural or divine activity, insisting that any such information violates the standards of science. It means doing science "as if nature is all there is." Here is the way Alvin Plantinga puts it: -----"The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity). The methods of science, it is claimed, "give us no purchase" on theological propositions--even if the latter are true--and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification. Thus, science is said to be religiously neutral, if only because science and religion are, by their very natures, epistemically distinct. However, the actual practice and content of science challenge this claim. In many areas, science is anything but religiously neutral; moreover, the standard arguments for methodological naturalism suffer from various grave shortcomings."StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Jerry, what appears to be going on is an attempt to exclude ID from the debate via arbitrary definitions. ID involves solely the natural world, does not attempt to invoke causes and in no way addresses the supernatural.tribune7_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Clive writes,
The designer doesn’t have to be non-natural. But even if it were, radio waves were once considered non-natural. I reckon it just depends on your lines of what constitutes nature, ...
I have agreed with both these things. In particular my point has been that focussing on some supposed dividing line between natural and non-natural obfuscates the more important point: that scientific explanations have to be testable in terms of further empirical observations. If there is nothing we, humankind at large, could observe to help us know whether a particular explanation is true or not, or to help us know what further refinements we might make in our explanation, then the explanation is not scientific. I think this distinction is more useful than saying science can only study nature in terms of its constituent parts, so I think the MN argument is perhaps a distraction unless one just takes it as shorthand for the scientific method as a whole (observations, testing hypotheses, etc.). Clive also writes,
methodological naturalism presupposes an answer, but that presupposition is itself not a conclusion of MN, but rather a philosophical one. If MN were all that one started with as a basis for methodology, you could never come to the conclusion using MN that you should use MN, for it doesn’t justify itself as a philosophical stance.
MN is a practical conclusion based on many hundreds of years of science. The fact that science can't itself prove that science is the way to go about things is not relevant: that is a conclusion that human beings have reached using more than just scientific reasoning. So I don't think that your argument that MN can't justify itself is important. Science is a tool devised by human beings for purposes that are themselves broadly based - purposes that go beyond science itself. This is an interesting issue, but not one that fundamentally calls into question the nature of science. Hope that was somewhat interesting. :)hazel_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

The debate is quite simple. It is over the conclusions one can/is allowed to make from the practice of science. Practicing methodological naturalism means examining the natural world. It does not imply what conclusions one makes based on that examination. Now some have made a coercive attempt to limit these conclusions. The assertion that it works is a fatuous argument because there are some obvious places where it hasn't. So the search goes on but that search should not limit the possible conclusions.jerry_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Hazel, why don't you think ID is meth-nat?tribune7_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Hazel, @324, you are right of course. In the end, it is our beloved audience of onlookers that we hope to reach.StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Hazel, Your position is well understood. It is exactly why I added "masquerading as a search for clarity" to the end of my comment.Upright BiPed_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Upright biped writes,
While Hazel’s comments are sometimes interesting, she is a poster child for a defense lead by obfuscation (masquerading as a search for clarity).
Thank you - I hope to be at least sometimes interesting. I have a philosophical position quite different than that held by the ID supporters on this thread - one which many of you consider irrational, blind to the facts, etc., so it is no wonder that you and others feel the way you do. This doesn't bother me. I'm trying to learn, and perhaps in some cases to teach. I feel it is valuable to hear the arguments of people with whom I disagree, and to explore those so as to better understand what I myself think. Perhaps for some of you the same is true - perhaps not. But everyone needs to just put their best case forward, and if you, or I, are successful in influencing others, then good for us; and if we come across as sticking our head in the sand, obfuscating, being irrational or dogmatic, attacking the person instead of the idea, etc., then not so good for us. So if Stephen is trying to "win" arguments with me, then I think he should take your advice and give up on me. However, if he is trying to be a convincing representative for his point of view to the world at large, then he ought to continue doing the best he can and hope he is effective and influential.hazel_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

hazel, ----"You write that MN would disqualifies ID as science. If ID posits a non-natural cause that cannot be tested by reference to empirical observations, then ID isn’t science, not because of the first issue (non-natural) but because of the second issue (cannot be tested by reference to empirical observations.) However, as far as I can tell there is no statement of what ID is that is specific enough to apply this criteria: ID appears to be way too broad of an idea." The designer doesn't have to be non-natural. But even if it were, radio waves were once considered non-natural. I reckon it just depends on your lines of what constitutes nature, and on this question, which is really the central question, methodological naturalism presupposes an answer, but that presupposition is itself not a conclusion of MN, but rather a philosophical one. If MN were all that one started with as a basis for methodology, you could never come to the conclusion using MN that you should use MN, for it doesn't justify itself as a philosophical stance.Clive Hayden_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

---Larry Tanner: "If you were to “re-write” or revise the definition of methodological naturalism - including its name - how would you do it? That is, what is the better formulation of the methodological approach scientists should follow?" [A] Science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [B] Scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Beyond that, the scientist must devise his own methods because only the scientist knows which problem he is trying to solve. Hence, Einstein could not have arrived at his theory of relativity if he had been told that he must use exactly the same methods employed by Charles Darwin. Similarly, ID cannot employ information theory to argue on behalf of intelligent design if some bureaucratic interest goup declares that ID's methods, however rigorous and appropriate, do not conform to some petty rule that was calculated to rule out ID in the first place. If a scientist does not know enough about his discipine to choose the right methods, then he is not worthy of his profession. One thing sure, no institutional rule can help him since no institutional rule can anticipate the problem in advance and cannot therefore say anything meaningful about which method should be used. The explanatory filter, for example, is appropriate for one thing and one thing only, detecting complex specified information. How could an institutional rule provide that system. On the other hand, if the ID scientists are so stupid and so methodologically sloppy as to bootleg their religious faith into their methodology, which is what they are often accused of doing, how could the "rule" of methodological naturalism make them any less stupid? We don't need an administratively enforced rule to tell us that smuggling a religious presupposition into a scientific conclusion constitues bad scientific practice. We already know that. What we need is for ID critics to learn the difference between a religious presupposition and a design inference. If those who presume to make the rules are too naive to distinguish one from the other, then it is they that need watching and monitoring.StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Stephen, methinks you'll just have to give up on Hazel. It would be hard to imagine anyone with their head shoved more deeply into the sand. There is seemingly no end to the length she will go to ignore what is in directly in front of her. As I stated earlier upthread, mataphysical materialism cannot attack itself to improve its position, thereofere, zero tolerance is the only refuge left to it. While Hazel's comments are sometimes interesting, she is a poster child for a defense lead by obfuscation (masquerading as a search for clarity).Upright BiPed_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

StephenB, Forgive me if this seems a basic and/or naive question, but... I get that you see methodological naturalism as flawed, and I get why. If you were to "re-write" or revise the definition of methodological naturalism - including its name - how would you do it? That is, what is the better formulation of the methodological approach scientists should follow? Thanks.Larry Tanner_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

Stephen, I am willing to leave judgments up to the onlookers. I always write with the general audience in mind. I am not trying to convince you of anything, but rather to use discussion (if you can call it that) as a springboard to clarifying the extent of the issues and to expressing myself on those issues.hazel_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

----allanius: "It’s possible, of course, to define “methodological naturalism” as simple observation of nature. What matters is how the academy defines it and what they do with that definition. Consult the Kansas City standards for education in the sciences.StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Hazel, I don't have any more time to wade through your nonsense and correct your multi-dimensional errors. Anyone who reads our recent exchanges thoughtfully will soon discover that you are impervious to reason and ever so prone to change the subject. I merely ask onlookers to go back and read posts 301 forward to get my point.StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Ergo: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/richard-sternberg-on-junk-dna/#comment-315970Charlie_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

It's possible, of course, to define “methodological naturalism” as simple observation of nature. Tons of basic research papers are published every year that do just that. But Allen and band of merry mates have something else in mind. They make the metaphysical assumption that evolution occurred by purely natural means and use “methodological naturalism” as a club to suppress all other viewpoints. We’ll go with Kant. The question of origins lies outside of pure science because origins cannot be seen. Darwinism is based on a metaphysical assumption.allanius_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

to Stephen at 313: I'm sure my comprehension is just fine. I understand your point, and I understand mine, but I don't think the reverse is true. Therefore I am not hopeful that trying to explain again will help. I also think that if you would stop initiating these judgments about our rationality, reading comprehension, etc, and just make your points, we might all be happier. Science studies nature "as if nature is all there is" means that science limits itself to a certain kind of investigation (details can be found in many places - try googling "scientific method.") Science doesn't say that nature is all there is - such a determination is outside the scope of science: science says that what science does is study nature in terms of itself. Science is a limited way of knowing the world - it does not encompass nor address all knowledge. I haven't addressed your point about ID because that is a topic that I haven't been very interested in discussing, but I will now because you continue to repeat it. You write that MN would disqualifies ID as science. If ID posits a non-natural cause that cannot be tested by reference to empirical observations, then ID isn't science, not because of the first issue (non-natural) but because of the second issue (cannot be tested by reference to empirical observations.) However, as far as I can tell there is no statement of what ID is that is specific enough to apply this criteria: ID appears to be way too broad of an idea. For instance, theistic evolutionists believe that God guides every moment of the world, and that all is because of his will. This may be true, but it is not a statement that science can even begin to address. On the other hand, the belief that little green space people dropped life on earth many billions of years ago and then periodically returned to make new additions is a testable hypothesis, although no evidence for it has been found. So for ID to even begin to be considered science it needs to provide some empirically testable hypotheses. If those hypotheses were to posit non-natural causes but were yet testable by the methods of science, then they could be studied - although I think if the hypotheses were confirmed we would probably reclassify the causes as natural. (And, as an aside, I prefer the word material to natural, because I think there are some natural things, such as each person's private internal experiences, that are not accessible to communal science.) ==========hazel_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

----Hazel: "Perhaps you should address the issue rather than just repeating yourself and declaring us irrational for not agreeing with you." Here is the way it works. “Metaphysical” naturalism is the dogmatic assumption that nature is all there is. “Methodological naturalism” is the academic rule of doing science “as if nature is all there is,” while withholding comment about ultimate reality. That is why the word “naturalism” follows the word “methodological.” It means, do science as if metaphysical naturalism was true without asserting that metaphysical naturalism is true. [Wikipedia] Methodological naturalism means studying nature “as if nature is all there is.” [Lewontin] It means science cannot “allow a Divine foot in the door.” I can provide a dozen more examples if you need them from Eugenie Scott to Ken Miller. Now, it is this definition that disqualifies ID is science, which is, of course, is the reason that it was formulated that way. Please try to learn this and you will not fall into some of the more unfortunate lapses in logic that I will now illustrate: ---Hazel: "But MN (short cut for a much bigger idea) doesn’t say that nature (that which science can study) is all there is. What it says is that the techniques of science are limited to studying certain kinds of things in a certain way.” The first sentence is demonstrably false as I have just indicated. With regard to the second sentence, what does “certain things in a certain way” mean? Excuse me, but it means nothing. ----Allen MacNeill: "This is all that “methodological naturalism” is prescribing: that the most fruitful way to study nature is to observe it, and to ground one’s conclusions in one’s observations and solely in one’s observations." That statement is calculated to soften the idea that we should “study nature as if nature is all there is.” By MacNeill’s new definition, the one that attempts to evade the real definition which disqualifies ID as science, ID would, in fact, qualify as science. ID’s conclusions are, after all, grounded solely in observation. And, for that matter, so were most of the earlier scientists. [Of course, here you must also understand that, even at that, they are not, strictly speaking, grounded “solely” in observation because an assumption of a rational universe must precede even the observation. (But you are not ready for that subtler point yet, because you are still lagging too far behind even on the surface issue)] ----Hazel: "Boyle practiced methodological naturalism (irrespective of the actual term used)." Excuse me again, but that statement really is, [here it comes] “irrational.” The definition or the term used is only everything as I have just indicated. Further, it is clear that Boyle did not practice methodological naturalism. He and his collegues of that era believed that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him,” an idea that is totally unacceptable from the standpoint of methodological naturalism. Now please take this information and reread my comments @309 with what I trust will be improved comprehension.StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Mr StephenB, I disagree, of course, that "sucess of anthropic principle = design" but I did not want to distract from the thoughts of my previous post! ;)Nakashima_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Mr StephenB, Yes, I can feel that this is a very wearisome discussion. I am not a big fan of this kind of stuffs - 'what was in the mind of the Founding Fathers'. If there is a witch hunt in the academy today, that can be addressed without the side issue of whether definitions have been read back into the historical record. My father was an academic, and I grew up with a ringside seat on academic backbiting and politics. As with letting a guilty man go free to avoid imprisoning the innocent, my personal preference is to allow "the feeling of being stared at" to be studied. The biggest lesson to be drawn from Newton is that he feared his private religious opinion would cost him his job. How sad if we have not progressed since then.Nakashima_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

I don't believe you have accurately portrayed the position of many of us in this discussion, and certainly not me. In particular, I can find no place on this thread where the phrase "preference for natural causes" appears. Also, you have persistently ignored the point I have made that one can be a theist and still practice MN, which is what the scientists mention did: the fact that their motivation and their belief in an ordered universe was religiously based does not change the fact that when they actually did the science, they practiced MN. In fact, when I wrote that "One can be, and millions are, a theist and still practice methodological naturalism," your response was,
Totally irrelavent.
That's not a very strong argument. Perhaps you should address the issue rather than just repeating yourself and declaring us irrational for not agreeing with you.hazel_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

Mr. Nakashima, let me explain why the problem of definitions is important. This blog is primarily about drawing inferences to design based on observation. By way of the “anthropic principle,” we infer a designed universe, and by way of FSCI [and other patterns] we infer the design of life. Now according to the arbitrary and intrusive principle of “methodological naturalism,” we may not draw these inferences because, according to this principle, science must study the universe “as if nature is all there is.” Well, obviously that rules out drawing inferences about a designer who may transcend the natural universe, so that would mean that ID is not science. This is very bad reasoning because science has never limited itself in this way. Obviously, all the great scientists of the past assumed the very opposite, that is, they insisted that since a rational and comprehending God created the universe, the universe must also be rational, and comprehensible. Indeed, that assumption not only undergirds science reasoning, it undergirds all reasoning period. If we don’t believe that our rational minds correspond to a rational universe, we can’t reason in the abstract. So, it should be clear that Newton, Faraday, Boyle, and all the other greats did not proceed on the assumption that nature is all there is. It was, in fact, the opposite point of view that informed them and gave these men the courage to persist in the face of many frustrations, failures, and disappointments. Now, when I explained this point to the Darwinists on this blog, they began by denying these facts, telling me that these men really practiced “methodological naturalism,” which of course they did not. When I began to provide example after example of scientists who held the opposite view, my adversaries realized that they had no argument. Rather than concede the point, however, they began to soften their definition of methodological naturalism in order to make it seem more historical. Indeed, their revised definition was so radical from the one that they attempt to enforce in the academy, [and the one they use to declare intelligent design invalid] that Intelligent Design would actually fit into it. Then, with this new softened definition, [MN as a “preference for natural causes,”] they wanted to go back in time as say that it has always been so. So, here is the way the game is played. If Darwinists want to persecute ID, they define methodological naturalism as meaning that “nature is all there is.” But, if they want to argue irrationally that this new outrageous doctrine is not new, they simply change the definition to something else and then say the new definition has always be so. This is the kind of irrational nonsense I have to deal with regularly on this blog.StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Mr Hayden, I delight in Mr Chesterton's prose even as he flies to cloud cuckoo land. So 'law' should be reserved for situations where we understand the relation, as well as we understand pickpockets and prisons? What about pickpockets and being whipped? Standing in the stocks and having garbage, rocks and sewer waste thrown at you? Having you hands cut off? Being sold into slavery? GKC hasn't looked at the tax code recently has he? Having warmed on those, I'm sure he'll be ready to explain the Law of the Red Heifer. Chesterton seems to think the universe is run by the Mikado, and that the "punishment fits the crime". I suppose he never saw the guilty go free on a technicality, or the innocent wrongly imprisoned. If he doesn't like the term, 'law of nature', he would do better than to point at the uniformity, regularity, justice, and purpose of human laws. But all that aside, I see that you and Seversky agree that science works by assumption of regularity. So we don't need GKC to be wheeled out any more, thank you. Actually, I've said before that science works by finding the lack of regularity. Engineering might be happy with the line fit between dependent and independent variables, but science never is.Nakashima_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 14 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply